why not give it a try? ♪ ♪ paul: welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul gigot. former president donald trump was indicted by a new york grand jury on thursday. it is the first ever criminal case against a former u.s. president and puts the country in uncharted legal and politicaller story. we begin with the legal implications of manhattan district attorney alvin bragg's unprecedented move. for that, i'm joined by former justice department official david rivkin.

well -- welcome, dade. >> good on with you. paul: thank you for coming in. the common refrain from a lot of people about this, particularly from democrats and many in the media, is this indictment shows that no one is above the law. what's your response to that argument? >> silly, silly sentence, i'm afraid. nobody's below the law. the key question here is not even whether it's a strong case and, paul, it's an exceedingly weak case. but even if it was strong, in order to indict a former president you need to have an utterly compelling set of circumstances, really serious crime. and, frankly, the country that would not be epo lahrized about it -- be polarized about it. it's not to indict everything you think you can get out of a grand jury, it is to do good, and i see precious little good being done here. paul: so as a prosecutor with limited resources, think about it, not only what the technical

legal violation might be, but whether or not this serves the cause of justice and, in fact, is in the national interests, is that what you're saying? >> that is exactly right. and, of course, that calculus is far more compelling in the instance. we're not talking about a small-time bank robbery. and met me just briefly ill louis date several suggestions. we're talking about a democrat prosecutor and, by the way, even if alvin bragg is completely nonpartisan here, that's not the perception. we're talking about something that happened seven years ago, been investigated for suggestion, something that's been rejected by both federal prosecutors and mr. bragg's predecessors in mr. vance's office. we're talking about something that is incredibly complicated. five or six propositions above law, in fact, that have on the established. and we're talking about

something like political polarization. very briefly, there have been two instances where both richard nixon and bill clinton could have been indicted with no factual disputes. in both stances that was not done by the prosecutors, for good reasons. paul: well, and, of course, former president ford pardoned richard nixon precisely to spare the country from a big dispute, and he did so at some political cost, no question about that. and robert wray did not indict bill clinton even though your argument would be that, actually, it was a pretty clear cut case of perjury and, again, he did so out of national interest grounds, i assume. >> perjury and obstruction of justice. democrats were defending the proposition of course in the context of indictment first, that it did not merit it. yes -- and, by way, as to nixon, you're right as to ford pardoning him, but i happen to think if you look at what the

special prosecutor people were talking about even without ford's pardon, i do not think that nixon would have been indicted. paul: okay. so you said this is an exceedingly weak case. what is the biggest weakness here that you see as wray -- i mean, as bragg goes to prosecute this? >> first, statute of limitations. second, establishing that the documents, in fact, that trump had something to do personally, sufficient personal involvement in how this was done in the books. but the most difficult part, frankly -- remember, it's a misdemeanor charge under state law as far as fraud involving business documents, what you immediate to make it a felony is to say that he did it to prevent being charged with another crim- paul: right. >> violation of federal election law. several things. first of all, that argument has been rejected by doj. second of all, there's no

instance in new york law that it's ever been done the way. and and third, as we know perfectly well, small violation ises of campaign finance, even if they were that, typically are handled with a fine. i cannot think of any if insans where anybody was indicted for that -- instance. by way, given the somewhat club arer -- libertarian -- libertine character of his prior life that trump really, really needed to prevent the american people from, you know, learning about stormy daniels? or did he do it for other reasons? in which case it was not a campaign finance violation. paul: this gets to the question of intent which, of course, a prosecutor has to prove in a case. you have to prove that somebody knew that he was breaking the law and intended to break the law. >> beyond a reasonable doubt. paul: right. and you're saying that in this case it could be that donald trump was, agreed to sign off, if he did, on these payments

because he didn't intend to the violate any campaign finance law, he maybe wanted to hide it from his wife. >> absolutely. and, again, to emphasize again, proven beyond a reasonable caught that that was, or indeed, his motive. but here again i would emphasize even if all of those difficulties were overcome, it is a horrible exercise of prosecutorial discretion. not to depress the listeners, i assume that trump will do well. his lawyers may prevail in a motion practice. but you know what, paul? the harm has been done. what bragg has done has literally changed the environment, the political palate palatability and acceptability of what's going on. so this is not a question -- politically, of course, it would be better for trump if he prevails, but the damage is not going to be ameliorated no matter what happens with the case. the damage is done as of today. paul: to the sense of confidence in justice in the united states.

thank you very much, david rivkin, appreciate it. much more on the indictment of former president donald trump when we come back as our panel weighs in on the political fallout from this week's developments. ♪ ♪ next on behind the series... that run with the champ was magical. i mean the tender chicken, the peppercorn ranch... i love my rings but i'll cherish that lunch... forever. the subway series. the greatest menu of all time.

- i'd like to speak to customer ser- - [phone operator] press one to speak to a customer service representative. (dial beep) i'm sorry, i didn't get that. (customer groans) - representative! - [phone operator] please try again, i'm sorry. - oh, buddy! come here. you need a hug. ohh, there you go. you also need consumer cellular. you'll talk to a real person, every time. - as nice as you? - much nicer! well... almost! (laughs) - [announcer] get the exact same coverage as the nation's leading carriers and 100% us based customer support. starting at $20. consumer cellular.

get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do.

getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. ♪ paul: lawmakers on capitol hill reacting to the trump indictment this week with republicans calling the move outrageous and and a blatant the abuse of power. the former president himself calling the indictment a political persecution and warning that the move will backfire on joe biden. for more on the political fallout, i'm joined by columnists kim strassel and editorial board members kyle peterson and maine nay baa rue what. so, zimm, why do you think -- kim, why do you think that alvin bragg brought this 7-year-old case to an indictment now? is this -- is there political motive here? >> yeah, it's all political, paul. and i think it's both local and

national. look, one thing just in terms of bragg's interests, okay? he's the manhattan d.a., an area that is 85% democrat. he's probably banking that this will make him a hero among those democratic voters and help him with his own political fortunes and re-election. but hen there's the national element, and that is that democrats want donald trump to remain front and center, and we're headed into this 2024 presidential contest. they know that this has worked for them in the past, it's i e pelled moderate voters -- repelled moderate voters in the 2018 election, the 2020 the election and now 2022, the midterms, and they want to do it again in 2024. paul: mane, it's not without risk though because if it's as weak as our previous guest, david rivkin, suggested it is and it's thrown out in court by the judge or a jury, one juror is all you need for a hung jury, there could -- this could

backfire on the democrats and help trump. >> it absolutely could. i think that most of the american public if probably has a hard time understanding exactly what the nature of the charge is. it kind of throws together these separate crimes to put it within alvin bragg's jurisdiction. so even people who already dislike trump probably are not necessarily super excited about the prospect of him being put to trial for the particular crime. but i do think we're already seeing evidence of it helping his candidacy. if you looked at the first couple of months after he declared, he was trailing in most of the polls to ron desantis. but he actually has started to gain a little bit recently, and can that's probably because the potential indictment has put him back in the news. it really because seem like now every candidate's going to be forced to answer questions about trump, and he's going to be even more center stage than he had been, and it seems like it's probably going to-his candidacy a little bit. paul: kyle, do you agree with

kim that the democrats nationally like this case, that they want it brought even despite the potential weaknesses of it? because remember, there are three other cases that are being investigated, one by a georgia grand jury about 2016 -- excuse me, 2020, and another, a couple in d.c. by the special counsel. a lot of democrats think if you're going to to bring any charges against the former president, you better do it with a stronger case than this. >> right. and so they may be excited for this now because they think it will put frump back in the spotlight -- trump back in the spotlight, but ask them again in a year when you say, it may get thrown out on a technicality, you may have a not guilty verdict against the president. and i think most analysts left, right and center agree of all the three legal perils that are pending against president trump, this one is the weakest of them. so what may end up happening is trump winning this case, coming out victorious, and then using that and using the argument that this was a political prosecution

to, you know, argue against whatever happens next such as the georgia investigation by district attorney there, bonnie willis. paul: well, what if convicted, kyle? >> yeah. there it's hard to know because, again, i think a lot depends on how these other cases turn the out. i think that a lot of people even if he's convicted, a lot of republicans will still rally to his side. i mean, we're talking about a billionaire and the payment to stormy daniels was $130,000 to. so i think the fact that this is so old, the fact that it's not some multimillion dollar scheme to evade the trump organization's axes, i think a lot of -- taxes, i think a lot of republicans will view it that way. paul: kim, the convexal wisdom is that -- conventional wisdom is that this will help the former president win the nomination but hurt him in november. what do you think of that so-called wisdom? >> yeah, i think that that's probably right.

look, it's getting a lot of attention, it's putting him back in the news. he's fund raising a boodle off of this, so there's that. let's say he wins the nomination. as i was saying before, one of the problems here is donald trump can really command loyalty among certain parts of his base, but what we've seen in all recent elections is that a he's very epo lahrizing to those in the -- very polarizing to those in the middle and key voting groups. that's how joe biden beat him the last time, and that's what democrats are wanging on the time -- banking on this time too. if he is the nominee, it's their best shot of beating him. paul: mene, one comment by a prominent american politician struck me, and that is former speaker nancy pelosi tweeted that, well, everybody, you know, should honor the process, and donald trump now has a chance to prove his innocence. that's not the way the system

works. [laughter] >> and i think nancy pelosi probably realized exactly what she was saying when she tweeted that. i think a lot of people have been waiting and hoping for donald trump to be charged with and any other crime. they're convinced he's corrupt to the core, and they certainly believe that he's guilty and think that there's a heavy, heavy burden on him to prove otherwise. and so that's exactly what to expect from pelosi and other liberals, i think, as we proceed with the trial process. paul: of course, in america you're innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. when we come back, more on political fallout from thursday's grand jury indictment and how donald trump's 2024 the rivals and potential rivals are reacting. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ i'm gonna love you forever ♪ ♪ ♪ c'mon, bear. ♪ ♪ ♪ you don't...you don't have to worry... ♪

♪ be by your side... i'll be there... ♪ ♪ with my arms wrapped around... ♪ if your moderate to severe crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis symptoms are stopping you in your tracks... choose stelara® from the start... and move toward relief after the first dose... with injections every two months. stelara® may increase your risk of infections, some serious, and cancer. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection, flu-like symptoms, sores, new skin growths, have had cancer, or if you need a vaccine. pres, a rare, potentially fatal brain condition, may be possible. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. feel unstoppable. ask your doctor how lasting remission can start with stelara®. janssen can help you explore cost support options. (vo) in one second, sara (woman) yes (vo) will get a job offer somewhere sunnier. relocating in weeks. (woman) weeks?

(vo) yeah, weeks. (woman) gotta sell the house. (vo) don't worry, sell to opendoor, and move on your schedule. (woman) yes! (vo) request a cash offer at opendoor dot com.

♪ paul: florida governor and potential 2024 republican presidential candidate ron

desantis the denouncing donald trump's indictment on thursday, calling the move un-american and a weaponization of the legal system and vowing not to assist in the former president's extradition from florida. our panel is back with a look at what the indictment could mean for the 2024 presidential primary and donald trump's republican rivals. kyle, first of all, the extradition point really doesn't mean much because the president's now going to appear himself in new york, but what do you make of all of the republican candidates lining up and saying, basically saying this is a political prosecution? smart strategiesome. >> well, i think that's probably a smart strategy, saying it's a political prosecution. i think that is maybe the common dethe nominator everybody can agree on, republican voters can agree on. i'm doubtful of going further like that, like ron desantis saying he wouldn't help with extradition. my if understanding is that the governor of a state does not have a choice about that, and so i think there's a significant risk here for republican

candidates going too far in their defenses of the president because we don't know all the evidence, and they may go full hilt for president trump and ask then some damning piece of evidence comes out. i think desantis was savvier a little bit earlier when he said this was a political prosecution, but, you know, he personally doesn't know what goes into paying off an adult film star. i think that was a little craftier reminding voters that this is some sordid business even if it shouldn't be charged, in his view. paul: do you agree with that, mene? because desantis needs trump voters. he needs to pick up some of those. and if they sense that he isn't pull-throated on the concern full-throated on the side of the president, he could suffer, i suppose. >> yeah, absolutely. i think that, as kyle mentioned, he kind of tried to walk the line in the very beginning between criticizing mr. trump for his conduct while also suggesting that he thought charge was pretty politicize -- politicized. and i think that will resonate with voters, even certain trump

voters. most trump voters already do like desantis the, they see them as allies in some of the same causes. i think desantis needs to show he knows this is a politically motivated process on the part of bragg and that he condemns it and doesn't believe that a former president should be charged for this kind of crime, but i don't think that the he needs to be out shouting trump's praises and and rallying to his defense. that's not going to help him with people who like him for other reasons, and i don't think that's necessarily what's expected of him by the republican primary base. paul: kim, the risk of republicans running existence trump is that the trials and the cases, they'll suck all the oxygen out of the room, all the focus will be on trump, and they won't -- these the candidates won't get any attention for what heir the talking about. they won't be able to focus on their campaigns. what advice would you give these candidates about how to go about their business? ignore the trials and all this, say i've already are commented on it once, i'm not going to comment again, and focus on

biden? >> yeah, absolutely. that is the right advice, paul. i mean, look, if they're asked to talk about this again, i think there actually is a way to thread the needle where you can very much -- you come across as genuine by noting that this is a really problematic prosecution, and then you also bring up the question of asking voters saying, look, here's the problem, this is always going to be the case with donald trump. they're always going on the coming after him. we've got to ask whether or not we want that continued kind of drama. but then the, yes, turn the attention back to biden and the economy and the failures that are going on at the moment because i think there's a lot of republican voters, base voters, who want to hear that. they want to hear the message, they want to know how they can compare and contrast these different candidates, they want to know what these people would do to fix it. and while media might have an endless appetite for trump, i think voters are going to reward those candidates that instead are talking about issues that are front and center in voters' lives ooh right now. paul: especially as the trial goes on, that could happen.

so, you know, one of the things that i really worry about with this case, kyle, is the long-term implications that the precedent sets of indicting a former president for the first time in 230 years. you know, these things tend the, when you get, break norms like this, what tends to happen is other prosecutors will say, aha, well,, i can do that, and some republican prosecutor in some local jurisdiction somewhere decides he wants to indict a democratic president? i think this opens the door for that kind of thing, and it really worries me. >> yeah. i think that's something that voters ought to be concerned about. not only -- i mean, it's one thing if you have the first indictment against a former president in history and it's the an open and shut case on a serious charge and, you know, generally you can get 70-30 agreement that this was a good idea, but i worry that we're not going down that road. we're going to be in a place where this is just another partisan football, and i think you're right. i think there are a lot of republicans, local prosecutors who will think what's good for the goose is good for the

gander. paul: and the republicans aren't going to have any mercy on joe biden or hunter or anybody else if they get the opportunity to bring a case like this. still ahead, top military officials make the case for the biden defense budget on capitol hill amid warnings of a new arms race between the u.s. and china. is the u.s. ready for beijing's next move? we'll ask alaska senator and armed services committee members da jn sullivan next.is te♪ of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv need relief for tired, achy feet? or the energy to keep working? there's a dr. scholl's for that. dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles have patented gel waves that absorb shock to hard-working muscles and joints, for all-day energy. trelegy for copd. ♪birds flyin' high, you know how i feel.♪

♪breeze driftin' on by...♪ ♪...you know how i feel.♪ you don't have to take... [coughing] ...copd sitting down. ♪it's a new dawn,...♪ ♪...it's a new day,♪ it's time to make a stand. ♪and i'm feelin' good.♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd... ...medicine has the power to treat copd... ...in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler,... ...trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler... ...for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,... ...vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... ...and save at trelegy.com.

the new chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the new ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

♪ paul: the biden administration's top defense officials were on capitol hill this week making the case for the president's $842 the billion pentagon budget proposal with joint chiefs chairman general mark milley issuing a stark warning about china's military ambitions. >> they have a national goal to be a global, to be the global co-equal with the united states and spear is your militarily by mid century. they're on that path to do that, and that's really disturbing. we're going to have to not only keep pace, but we have to outpace that, and that'll assure or the peace. paul: joining me now is republican senator and armed services committee member dan sullivan of alaska. senator, welcome. >> hey, paul. good to be on the show, thanks. paul i know you follow events in taiwan and china closely from your post in alaska, and the taiwanese president, it's been reported, is passing through the united states on her way to central america. not an official visit, but she's meeting with some americans, and

one of those americans may with speaker of the house kevining mccarthy who has said he wanted to meet with her. but the chinese government in beijing has threatened reprisals, said they would take some action if he does. should he meet with her anyway? >> absolutely, he should. we should not have the dick ato haves in beijing -- dictators in beijing telling the third most important elected official in america who and who he can't meet with, especially who he and can't meet with on american soil, for goodness sakes. absolutely, he should meet with him. paul: okay, all right. she's not meeting with the officials of the biden administration. is that a mistake? should they? >> well, you know, i mean she's done these transits many times, this is herth transit -- seventh transit, is so it's pretty routine. what's happening though is the can chinese communist party, in my view, is always looking for a way to ratchet up tensions in the taiwan straits. some of these i think they almost preplan. so i think a meeting with the

speaker is important as well as others important, and so i think this is routine. and when you hear the chinese doing their bluster, it's just what this is, bluster and saber-rattling. paul: i know you follow the military balance of power closely in the taiwan strait, and i wonder if you'd -- what's your sense of the adequacy of the american military preparedness in being able to repell a chinese attack -- repel a chinese attack on taiwan if it comes? are we ready many. >> well, you know, we have a great force up there. i'm still in the marine corps reserves, and my billet assignment is out thereto -- in the theater, so i see our leadership out there, and they do incredible work. you just highlighted that hearing. you know, i had general milley and secretary austin, i hit them quite hard in that hearing because this is the third year in a row where they have brought to the congress defense cuts,

inflation-adjusted cuts that they proposed every year. i pressed both of them saying, look, this budget, another cut, and they expect us on the armed services committee -- which we do -- to bolster it. but this budget that they put forth shrinks the navy, shrinks the army, shrinks the marine corps, and that is exactly the wrong signal to be sending to xi jinping or putin. so to the answer to your question, we have a great force out there, but they're getting overmatched. there's no doubt in this -- and this administration's not taking it seriously particularly on our military assets. paul: well, what do we need most urgently? what do we need to get out there faster? >> i always like to a talk about the three levels of dedeference, which is what we need, right? -- deterrence. a war in the taiwan strait is going to be the started by xi jinping. so the three levels that i think we need to strengthen each level, the first is the kind of

porcupine strategy, what we need to be getting the tie pan news so they can -- taiwanese so they can defend themselves. and has the asymmetrical weapons systems, harpoons, stingers, javelins. we've got a $19 billion backlog, paul, on what hay need and what hay want. so that is number one. the second level of dedeference is will the -- deterrence is there the u.s. show up with our allies. that's been the traditional level of deterrence when there's been a crisis. paul: right. >> the third one doesn't get talked about a lot, and that's economic sanctions, final sections, energy sanctions that i think we should let the chinese know, hey, if you invade, here is what you're going to get hit with. representative gallagher and i a couple of days ago introduced the stand with taiwan act. these are significant, crushing sanctions that would be in place if they invaded taiwan. and i think all three of those levels of deterrence are the key

to preventing a war in the taiwan strait is. but we need to strengthen all of them. paul: okay. let me turn to an issue close to our heart here at "the journal," evan gershkovich arrested in moscow, arrested by the russians, apparently, on espionage charges. what would u.s. do to try to get him free? >> first of all, i always want to do a shout-out to our reporters both in ukraine and in russia. it's dangerous duty. this is another example of that. and, you know, i think that this issue is -- these are challenging issues because you want to bring people home, and, but i also worry about cutting deals, right? i think this last deal with the arms dealer, you know, of course we were all happy to get our hostage home to, but we just got one. we still have that marine, mr. whalen, there. and i worry that when we cut more deals, it just encourages more hostage taking.

i think the everybody needs to raise their voices on this which i put out a statement on it yesterday, but i don't know if cutting deals with other hostages or other russian bad actorses is the way to solve it, or does that actually increase the problem? paul: we'll see. we definitely the want to get -- >> i know you want -- [laughter] we all want to get him home. and, again, my hat's off to all the great work that our reporters are doing in these dangerous countries. paul: we've only got about 45 seconds left, but let's talk about energy. the house passed h.r. 1, a big permitting bill -- >> huge. paul: increase u.s. production. does that have any chance in the senate? >> schumer said it's dead on arrival, but let's have that debate. they are scared to death of that debate. by the way, in the house that was a bipartisan bill -- paul: right. >> -- and we could certainly get democrat votes in the senate for a bill like that. and the key to that, there's so many good parts of that bill, but the permitting reform components are fabulous. and our country needs major nepa

reform, that has it. we knead to be able to bring projects -- we need to be able to bring projects online much more quickly. alaska's ground zero for these delay, delay, delay projects. we had a gold mine, took 20 the years to permit. this is killing us. so i think we are already working on our own bill, and we are going to the bring, we're going to try and bring that to the floor, force some votes on that, and is we'll see. let's have that debate. the american people want american energy by american workers, and if this is a really good first step, and i applaud the members of the house for doing this. paul: senator dan sullivan, thanks for joining us. >> appreciate. paul: still ahead, with just three days to go, new polls show a very tight race to choose chicago's next mayor. our panel is back with a look at what's at stake as crime is and education take center stage in the final days of the campaign. uh... here i'll take that. ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein,

1 gram of sugar and nutrients for immune health. ♪ oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

♪ paul: as chicago voters get set to head to the polls tuesday to

choose who will replace mayor lori lightfoot, a new emerson college poll shows a tight race between paul vallass and union organizer brandon johnson with vallas holding a 5-point lead and 13% of chicago voters still undecided. crime is op thing the list of voter concerns with 52% saying it's the most important issue in determining who they'll support with education coming in a distant second at 11%. our panel is back with a look at what's at stake in tuesday's runoff. mene, show -- so how will chicago be different depending on the victory by vallas or johnson? >> it's an interesting question because we have a runoff between two democratic candidates, so looking at the surface people might to not be aware of some of the differences. but the differences are deep. vallas is the candidate who's leery in favor of reform concern clearly in favor of reform. as far as education, which is another one of the important issues here, he's the one who's more open to potentially expanding charter education

which has provided great opportunity for row income -- low income students. and also on issue of crime he has said he wants to potentially boost funding for the police force. brandon johnson aches the opposite sides on both of those issues. in 2020 the as crime was beginning to surge, a lot of democrats were calling for defunding the police, and brandon johnson encoursed that position. he's since walked it back, but people think he's certainly not in favor of hiring more police officers and really tackling the cream issue. and then with schools, as you mentioned, he's a union organizer himself, and everyone expects that he'll do the bidding of the teachers' union if he's elected mayor. so there's a very, very clear choice between these candidates. paul: kim, this could have national implications because when lori lightfoot was defeated in the primary, that is one of the reasons that -- she was defeated large wily on crime, her criminal record -- that had some implications for president biden when he decided not to veto an override of a

washington, d.c. crime law. so if paul vallas wins here, that could send a message to the democrats on schools, crime and taxes. >> yeah. they are already very nervous on all of those issues, and seeing one of the cities and one of the country's biggest cities put someone in office that has been so openly pro-police and so critical of democrats, his fellow democrats on this issue, i think, really could resound. and, you know, we are going to see republicans, they're already in congress' thing up some more bills that are -- teeing up some more bills that are designed to put democrats on their back foot, and you can bet it's going to play big in the 024 the campaign. paul: kyle, another election on tuesday, and this is for the majority really on the wisconsin supreme court. it's now split 4-3 we republican appointees in the majority, but a republican justice stepping down, and this will be, it'll be 4-3 east way.

either way. this isn't just a state issue. this could also have national implications. why don't you tell us. >> sure. i mean, so what's getting most attention is the democratic candidate, and generally these kinds of supreme court races the candidates are very circumspect, they talk about the way they view the law, they talk about cases they have judged. and she is being more outspoken and more partisan than i think is normal. she said that she says she thinks act x, scott walker's union reform, the city -- she thinks it's over-- unconstitutional. she's also talked about election maps -- paul: for members of congress. >> right. that could potentially come before the court. again, would she recuse herself, and if not and she struck down those maps, would you end up with a map that flipped a few

house seats and maybe control of congress after the 2024 elections? so i think that's the reason that people outside of wisconsin ought on, ought to be looking at that race. but it is a fascinating one in terms of the supreme court election which are usually very quiet affairs. paul: this is going to turn out to be maybe the most expensive supreme court race in american history, not wisconsin history, millions of dollars pouring in from big dollar donors. the democrats really think this is a chance to turn tide in wisconsin to the make it back into what it was for some years, which is a democratic-leaning state it's now really a swing state. and have you ever heard of a justice who says before the race, before she's on the court, i think this is unconstitutional, these things? if they come before maine i don't know, though, if i will recuse myself, let me think about that. that that's outrageous. >> sure. >> absolutely. i think that she knows that

there is a lot of attention on this race, knows how much money is being poured in and really wants to signal her positions to voters particularly on the maps, as kyle mentioned, also on the abortion issue. that's going to be one of the huge things that comes before the court at some point soon. and there are a lot of left-leaning voters in that state who are exorcised ability the effective ban -- act the effective ban which is in place now. so she says, hey, what the hell, i'm going to make my opinions known on these issues and that try to drum up enthusiasm and help that carry me into office and really carry out some major political changes. paul: kim, briefly, awe abortion could be a very important issue here. this would send a signal about 024 on that issue, i suppose to. >> yeah, absolutely. especially we've seen this playing out in some ore states. -- other states. we saw it during the last midterms, how much abortion was playing in terms of crying in particular progressive and liberal voters to the bolls -- polls. this is another reminder to

republicans that they better get their positions in order as they head into the next election. paul paul still ahead, in the wake of last month's protest t at stanford against a trump-appointed judge, we'll audiocassette to ilya shapiro about the carriage posed by wokw schools. your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. with the money we saved, we thought we'd try electric unicycles. whoa! careful, babe! saving was definitely easier. hey babe, i think i got it! it's actually... whooooa! ok, show-off! help! oh! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

♪ paul: in the wake of last month's protest at stanford university law school over a speech by trump-appointed federal judge stuart kyle duncan, my next guest is sounding the the alarm, warning about the threat woke law schools pose to the american constitution constitutional system. ilya shapiro is senior fellow and director of constitutional studieses at the manhattan institute, and he joins me now. ilya, great to see you again. so your argument is that diversity, equity and exclusion,

so-called dei, focus may be no great harm in the english department, but when it starts being taught in the law schools, it has -- it can pose a real threat to our constitutional order. explain that. >> good to be with you again, paul. and you had a little freudian slip there, you said diversity, equity and exclusion -- [laughter] the really is what that's all about, perverting those little phrases to mean the opposite of what hay do and perverting our legal education where it's most dangerous. after all,, places like stanford, yale and georgetown, these are the future leaders, the gatekeepers of our rule of law. paul: so they're going the to be, especially from the elite law schools, be in these very prominent positions, but how widespread is this dei ideology really at law schools? >> is it that deeply embedded in those schools? >> well, especially during the

pandemic, especially after the murder of george floyd all institutions and especially academic including law school are, institutions adopted even more than they had, they doubled down on these bureaucratic structures. we're not talking about what's taught in the classroom, that's a separate issue, other concerns. that impose and indoctrinate students towards or activism of this illiberal virus i. this is not decades-old complaint from conservatives that liberals are taking over the faculty lounge. instead it's the bureaucrats are the tail that wags the dog, and they enforce these ideas that belie free speech, civil discourse, due process, even equality under the law under our constitutional order. paul: well, i mean, explain that. i mean, most people hear diversity, okay, that's a decent value. equity, i want equal

opportunity. inclusion, i'm for inclusion. i'm not excluding anybody, notwithstanding my freudian slip. explain why dei is so pernicious in how it works inside an organization like a law school. >> it optionallizes these whichl race theory is a subpart that looks at everything through the prism of oppress sessed classes, intersectional i is a buzzword about different levelsf privilege, and there is no objective truth, it's just power chi page ins that we get at. -- dynamics. and, in fact, the whole american constitutional system based on equal opportunity and individual liberty as you alluded to the, that itself is a manifestation of previous illegitimate structures based in white supremacy, racism, homophobia and the rest of it.

i'm not getting this out of graduate seminars from english departments in the 1980s. this is in the training programs and slide decks that we've seen from these dei administrators. paul: so you suggest in your interview with us that these dei bureaucracies are now dug in and that if schools want to get rid of this, they're going to have to get rid of those bureaucracies because they have their own kind of self-sustaining way of working and enforcement. is that, is that what has to happen? >> that's right. that's right. just like in the public sector where bureaucrats have every incentive to justify their authority and budgets, similar in i higher education including at law schools the dei officials go hunting for dragons to slay with microaggressions and implicit bias and all of these other kind of buzzwords. so i'm not talking about getting rid of civil rights enforcement. lord, no. i mean, the state and federal compliance officers with the ada and title ix and all that, that

needs to to stay. but it's all this bureaucratic muck, this illiberal bit that's been added in the last decade or so that needs to be eradicated root and branch. paul: that's pretty tough to do if you're a university dean because they've climbed the greasy pole at these places, and you risk getting a lot of people upset if you try another the that. do politics many state capitols have to get involved in this and start to say, look, we want to make sure this doesn't happen, this version of dei that you're talking about doesn't happen? >> on clear, most deans and university presidents, provosts, are not woke radicals. spair concern they're spineless cowards or bureaucrats who respond to the incentives, and they need to be shown there are real costs not just to not standing up to the mob, but to -- sorry, not just to, the real cost of not standing up to the mob, rather, that alumni and donors and employers, judges

perhaps not hiring from these law schools like jim ho and lisa branch have said and trustees and state legislate e ors as well -- legislators as well who especially for public universities can eliminate those offices, and congress can have strings tied to federal funding. paul: all right, ilya shapiro, good to see you. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and musses of the week. ♪ that performance was legendary. they just piled it on. roast beef, ham, oven roasted turkey. all on the subway club. three peat - that's great. three meat - that's epic. the subway series. the greatest menu of all time. as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes

you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com

flex time now for our hits and misses of the week. kim, first to you. in ancient watch in horror this week as a mentally deranged woman went into a national christian school and killed three children and three adults. my hit goes to the heroes that make sure those numbers were not even higher, the national police officers. they went to the school almost immediately. they win in an orderly fashion with great bravery.

this is in contrast to some school shootings we have seen like in texas were law enforcement waited too long. but paul, it's also a reminder watching a body camera footage of just how scary that job is and what least of our committees every day. >> i'm going to give my hit this week to west virginia senator shelley for leading the push to get rid of one of president biden's most harmful rules. the rules known as waters of the united states for it regulates federal waterways to make sure there is not too much pollution. the version president biden has proposed would be much too expensive. we have seen the right thing with legislators getting on board and making sure they tried to repeal this rule before it can do economic damage free. >> of pathos democratic votes in the senate. kyle? it's a given mr. commerce secretary jean efforts on the journal this week there was quote zero social policy in the chips active. these are the federal subsidies being doled out for semiconductor companies. but get real romano's department is telling applicants need to

submit detailed explanations of their childcare policies it's a classic result we do an industrial policy. >> those rules are going to stick aren't they kyle? she proposes that they're going to stick too. >> it seems they are think she wants promotion to secretary. but that doesn't for this week show thanks to my panel and for all of you for watching. i am paul gigot up to see you right here next week. ♪ revived presidential history days away from her president trump preparing to face criminal charges in a new york city courtroom as his lawyers plan to fight the case against him. police and secret service are finalizing security arrangements to protect him when he shows up for his arraignment. hello everyone i am molly lyon welcome to a brand-new hour of "fox news live", hi eric. super height eric i am eric shawn and arthur knebel is off today. mr. trump's arraignmendu